Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1477
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Friday, October 18 2002          Volume 01 : Number 1477

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 11:23:12 +0200
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ITU Resolution 102 -- four years later

On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 10:22:33AM +0200,
 [email-masked] <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 231 lines which said:

> countries, traditional telephony services are no longer monopolies.  There
> is a strong trend to privatization and liberalization, including the "local
> loop".

Although it is not really the result of an ITU action, one can note
that it is not a progress. The Worldcom and KPNQwest failures show
that you cannot trust "the private industry" with things like, for
instance, the subject of this mailing list.

> you will see that it includes many manufacturers and even computer
> companies.

Yes, and it does not seem that they are private actors outside of the
corporate world, such as NGO?

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 11:25:52 +0200
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ITU Resolution 102 -- four years later

On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 01:52:19PM -0400,
 Ross Wm. Rader <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 150 lines which said:

> Someone more versed in the matter might want to correct me, but a layperson
> could simply read the resolution thusly;

It is very funny that your version criticizes the ITU only on the
basis of an obsolete status of telcos not on the basis of the actual
role of ITU in Internet-bashing during a very long time (when they
tried to force OSI protocols through administrative and bureaucratic
fiat). This is something that the ITU never explained or fixed. 

[ITU web site:]
> perspective and cooperative approach with a solid technical foundation built
> on the expertise of hundreds of leading manufacturers, carriers and service
> providers. "

Yes, the people who invented X400 :-)
  
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 11:27:38 +0200
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ITU Resolution 102 -- four years later

On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 09:59:22PM -0500,
 Andy Gardner <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 23 lines which said:

> The one thing we DO NOT want to replace ICANN with is the ITU. God help us.

I could certainly agree (replacing a US-only bureaucracy by an
international monster which tried very hard to crush the Internet is a
progress?) but you did not explain *why*.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 11:38:47 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ITU Resolution 102 -- four years later

Ross Wm. Rader wrote:

>
>Someone more versed in the matter might want to correct me, but a layperson
>could simply read the resolution thusly;
>

I'm not more versed than you, and do not want to correct you, but will 
nevertheless propose a different reading.
What the ITU is doing is simply to encourage its members to participate 
*directly* in the management of the process. This does not mean that the ITU 
wants to candidate itself to replace ICANN (although it is not impossible 
that some people in the ITU might think so).

But maybe the interesting question is, rather than arguing again over 
"bureaucracy", "government vs. private sector", and the usual amenities, 
"why is this position different from the previous position?", namely the 
encouragement to participation in the entities that manage the process.
My answer is simply that it is because ICANN has failed to address some of 
the concerns of the members of the ITU, and therefore the ITU is encouraging 
its members to take direct action to correct the problem.

Some of you might remember the comments of Wilkinson and Twomey about 
representation in ICANN, I think it was in Yokohama, but I might be wrong. 
They both stated that, should ICANN fail in providing a mechanism for 
representation of the individuals (the discussion was about AtLarge 
Directors), governments would have stepped in.
Some oldcomers might also remember that this was exactly my point in some 
discussions at the times of the IFWP, and in the creation of ICANN: let's 
try to have self-governance, but be aware that we better get it right the 
first time (and therefore be prepared to compromise for the sake of broader 
consensus rather than to push one specific solution upon other unwilling 
stakeholders), because we might not have a second chance.
Well, here we go.

But this, as I said, does not mean that the ITU will take over. It only 
means that the governments cannot accept a situation in which a supposedly 
private entity, de-facto run by one of the Governments of the world, has the 
power to rule over the Internet world-wide.
ICANN is exaggerating now, and is stretching the thing too far.
On one hand it seems incapable to curb the monopolistic/oligopolistic 
ambitions of some powerful actors, and on the other hand is denying 
representativity to the less powerful, like individual users.
On one hand it allows free hand to the major gTLD, and on the other hand it 
is trying to impose unnecessary rules to the ccTLDs, that should be 
answerable to their local community (and to their individual governments), 
not to a centralized body.

But where do we go from here?
It was Karl, if I remember correctly, who advocated that there was no need 
to have just one organization that fulfills all tasks and duties of the 
current ICANN. We could have a "functional" breakdown allocating tasks to 
different entities (existing ones, or created "ad hoc").
If this is the way to go, it might well be that one or more functions be 
delegated to the ITU. For instance, the assignment of IP addresses, that 
seems similar to the management of the frequency spectrum or the telephone 
system, and seems to be perfectly adequate for an International Treaty 
Organization. Or the management of the A-root, a typical thing that should 
be protected by international law, and not be left under the authority of 
one Government.
Of course, other tasks might be completely out of scope for the ITU, or even 
for any other similar organization, and should be left to a different body 
or mechanism.

Comments?

Best regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________
Surf the Web without missing calls! Get MSN Broadband.  
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/freeactivation.asp

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 11:54:03 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Interesting WIPO ruling re: NewZealand.biz

Michael Froomkin wrote:

>....  "Miscellaneous" is the key word here...
>

Maybe the keyword is "enforcement".
The fact is that the current operator of .org has decided not to enforce 
what, in the great scheme of things, was intended to be the original charter 
of .org. The reason is simply that it was too costly.
There is really nothing that we can do: this is the situation, and ISOC is 
not going to be able to change it when it will take over, because it can't 
chase out from .org those who don't fit with the supposed profile.

.int is somehow different.
I am convinced that some cleanup will be done. It is sufficient to observe 
the care that is given now to award a name in .int, as can be seen, for 
instance, in the reconsideration request 
http://www.icann.org/committees/reconsideration/rc02-1.htm presented in the 
2002-08-23 Board meeting (minutes at 
http://www.icann.org/minutes/minutes-23aug02.htm).

While it is obvious that this costly procedure can be, and will be, applied 
for the few names in .int, it cannot, and will not, be applied for the large 
.org.

Regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________
Internet access plans that fit your lifestyle -- join MSN. 
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:57:52 +0200
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ITU Resolution 102 -- four years later

On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 11:38:47AM +0000,
 Roberto Gaetano <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 79 lines which said:

> If this is the way to go, it might well be that one or more functions be 
> delegated to the ITU. For instance, the assignment of IP addresses, that 
> seems similar to the management of the frequency spectrum or the telephone 
> system, and seems to be perfectly adequate for an International Treaty 
> Organization. 

And will they do better than, say, the current RIRs? In what way? Will
they "take", at least, some of the many unused IP addresses from the
North to give them to the South? 

I'm not interested in which bureaucracy will manage the Internet. I'm
interested in the actual policy they will follow.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 08:04:15 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ITU Resolution 102 -- four years later

> I'm interested in the actual policy they will follow.

Exactly. Identifying the need and defining the requirements, while less
interesting, is far more important than the implementation. Implementing a
system based on a series of conclusions (ie - an ideal implementation) will
be disastrous.

                     -rwr

Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog

"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of
thought which they seldom use."
 - Soren Kierkegaard

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephane Bortzmeyer" <[email-masked]>
To: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 7:57 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] ITU Resolution 102 -- four years later

> On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 11:38:47AM +0000,
>  Roberto Gaetano <[email-masked]> wrote
>  a message of 79 lines which said:
>
> > If this is the way to go, it might well be that one or more functions be
> > delegated to the ITU. For instance, the assignment of IP addresses, that
> > seems similar to the management of the frequency spectrum or the
telephone
> > system, and seems to be perfectly adequate for an International Treaty
> > Organization.
>
> And will they do better than, say, the current RIRs? In what way? Will
> they "take", at least, some of the many unused IP addresses from the
> North to give them to the South?
>
> I'm not interested in which bureaucracy will manage the Internet. I'm
> interested in the actual policy they will follow.
>
>
>

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 08:25:46 -0400
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Interesting WIPO ruling re: NewZealand.biz

Roberto,

My guess is that you did not mean to imply that the current operator made a
'unitlateral' decision not to enforce the conditions recommended by RFC
1591, but just in case some might conclude that, I would like to point out
as has been pointed out in the past that that decision was recommended by
Jon Postel and then followed by the current operator.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 7:54 AM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [ga] Interesting WIPO ruling re: NewZealand.biz
> 
> 
> Michael Froomkin wrote:
> 
> >....  "Miscellaneous" is the key word here...
> >
> 
> Maybe the keyword is "enforcement".
> The fact is that the current operator of .org has decided not 
> to enforce 
> what, in the great scheme of things, was intended to be the 
> original charter 
> of .org. The reason is simply that it was too costly.
> There is really nothing that we can do: this is the 
> situation, and ISOC is 
> not going to be able to change it when it will take over, 
> because it can't 
> chase out from .org those who don't fit with the supposed profile.
> 
> .int is somehow different.
> I am convinced that some cleanup will be done. It is 
> sufficient to observe 
> the care that is given now to award a name in .int, as can be 
> seen, for 
> instance, in the reconsideration request 
> http://www.icann.org/committees/reconsideration/rc02-1.htm 
> presented in the 
> 2002-08-23 Board meeting (minutes at 
> http://www.icann.org/minutes/minutes-23aug02.htm).
> 
> While it is obvious that this costly procedure can be, and 
> will be, applied 
> for the few names in .int, it cannot, and will not, be 
> applied for the large 
> .org.
> 
> Regards
> Roberto
> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Internet access plans that fit your lifestyle -- join MSN. 
> http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 14:45:07 +0200
From: "Collignon Francois" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] ITU Resolution 102 -- four years later

I agree with you Roberto.

Just a comment, Icann dont exist by itself, the dream has been broken.
My feeling is that we need to build a representative European, African and
Asia Icann(s) to do what we want.
Each regional Icann representatives can be seated in something under ITU
help.
The ITU support should be good in this way.

Francois
founding member of the CORE,DNSO,ICANN mess

- -----Message d'origine-----
De : [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]De la part de Roberto
Gaetano
Envoyé : vendredi 18 octobre 2002 13:39
À : [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Objet : Re: [ga] ITU Resolution 102 -- four years later

Ross Wm. Rader wrote:

>
>Someone more versed in the matter might want to correct me, but a layperson
>could simply read the resolution thusly;
>

I'm not more versed than you, and do not want to correct you, but will
nevertheless propose a different reading.
What the ITU is doing is simply to encourage its members to participate
*directly* in the management of the process. This does not mean that the ITU
wants to candidate itself to replace ICANN (although it is not impossible
that some people in the ITU might think so).

But maybe the interesting question is, rather than arguing again over
"bureaucracy", "government vs. private sector", and the usual amenities,
"why is this position different from the previous position?", namely the
encouragement to participation in the entities that manage the process.
My answer is simply that it is because ICANN has failed to address some of
the concerns of the members of the ITU, and therefore the ITU is encouraging
its members to take direct action to correct the problem.

Some of you might remember the comments of Wilkinson and Twomey about
representation in ICANN, I think it was in Yokohama, but I might be wrong.
They both stated that, should ICANN fail in providing a mechanism for
representation of the individuals (the discussion was about AtLarge
Directors), governments would have stepped in.
Some oldcomers might also remember that this was exactly my point in some
discussions at the times of the IFWP, and in the creation of ICANN: let's
try to have self-governance, but be aware that we better get it right the
first time (and therefore be prepared to compromise for the sake of broader
consensus rather than to push one specific solution upon other unwilling
stakeholders), because we might not have a second chance.
Well, here we go.

But this, as I said, does not mean that the ITU will take over. It only
means that the governments cannot accept a situation in which a supposedly
private entity, de-facto run by one of the Governments of the world, has the
power to rule over the Internet world-wide.
ICANN is exaggerating now, and is stretching the thing too far.
On one hand it seems incapable to curb the monopolistic/oligopolistic
ambitions of some powerful actors, and on the other hand is denying
representativity to the less powerful, like individual users.
On one hand it allows free hand to the major gTLD, and on the other hand it
is trying to impose unnecessary rules to the ccTLDs, that should be
answerable to their local community (and to their individual governments),
not to a centralized body.

But where do we go from here?
It was Karl, if I remember correctly, who advocated that there was no need
to have just one organization that fulfills all tasks and duties of the
current ICANN. We could have a "functional" breakdown allocating tasks to
different entities (existing ones, or created "ad hoc").
If this is the way to go, it might well be that one or more functions be
delegated to the ITU. For instance, the assignment of IP addresses, that
seems similar to the management of the frequency spectrum or the telephone
system, and seems to be perfectly adequate for an International Treaty
Organization. Or the management of the A-root, a typical thing that should
be protected by international law, and not be left under the authority of
one Government.
Of course, other tasks might be completely out of scope for the ITU, or even
for any other similar organization, and should be left to a different body
or mechanism.

Comments?

Best regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________
Surf the Web without missing calls! Get MSN Broadband.
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/freeactivation.asp

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 15:08:09 +0200
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: ITU press release on IDN resolution

- --=======2CFF4631=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-62544DD9; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

At 10:14 14/10/02, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> > Please note that the title of the ITU Press highlight has been corrected.
>
>There are still mistakes, for instance the mention of "multilingual
>domain names" while IDN is about multiSCRIPT domain names.

Dear Stephane,
I am afraid you read IETF too much. Govs in 102 talk about real world. What 
they want is "real life" mnemonics (RLMs) to be transcripted into a DNS 
accepted semantic and scripting.

Current IETF IDN group proposes a (partial) response using Unicode scripts 
and a non workable (not RFC 1591 conforming, IP bugged) proposition. As you 
know phonetic solutions will certainly be used. We have to cease seeing the 
Internet as a unique US/IETF controlled system.

Internet is only an interoperation of machines using some compatible 
protocols and three kinds of directories : physical addresses, software 
domain names and brainware real life mneomics. We have to start working 
seriously to understand how all that may work and to dramatically improve 
security, stability and innovation.

In doing that we must have no a priori (against OSI or others, or pro 
TCP/IP) otherwise we will not wind up with a performing solution. We are 
right now in a clean sheat situation, having identified that the current 
system just does not deliver.
jfc

>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>
>
>---
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.401 / Virus Database: 226 - Release Date: 09/10/02

- --=======2CFF4631=======--

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 06:12:10 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Interesting WIPO ruling re: NewZealand.biz

Practice versus practicality is a constant struggle, ask any Prosecutor.
What is right and what is wrong is too often settled by the check book.
If it was not a unilateral decision then it must have been a conspiracy.

Bad concept here, where you lead us is wrong Chuck.
But if Roberto, Michael and Chuck agree on this we have some real legalities to
soul search.
e

"Gomes, Chuck" wrote:

> Roberto,
>
> My guess is that you did not mean to imply that the current operator made a
> 'unitlateral' decision not to enforce the conditions recommended by RFC
> 1591, but just in case some might conclude that, I would like to point out
> as has been pointed out in the past that that decision was recommended by
> Jon Postel and then followed by the current operator.
>
> Chuck
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 7:54 AM
> > To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> > Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> > [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> > Subject: RE: [ga] Interesting WIPO ruling re: NewZealand.biz
> >
> >
> > Michael Froomkin wrote:
> >
> > >....  "Miscellaneous" is the key word here...
> > >
> >
> > Maybe the keyword is "enforcement".
> > The fact is that the current operator of .org has decided not
> > to enforce
> > what, in the great scheme of things, was intended to be the
> > original charter
> > of .org. The reason is simply that it was too costly.
> > There is really nothing that we can do: this is the
> > situation, and ISOC is
> > not going to be able to change it when it will take over,
> > because it can't
> > chase out from .org those who don't fit with the supposed profile.
> >
> > .int is somehow different.
> > I am convinced that some cleanup will be done. It is
> > sufficient to observe
> > the care that is given now to award a name in .int, as can be
> > seen, for
> > instance, in the reconsideration request
> > http://www.icann.org/committees/reconsideration/rc02-1.htm
> > presented in the
> > 2002-08-23 Board meeting (minutes at
> > http://www.icann.org/minutes/minutes-23aug02.htm).
> >
> > While it is obvious that this costly procedure can be, and
> > will be, applied
> > for the few names in .int, it cannot, and will not, be
> > applied for the large
> > .org.
> >
> > Regards
> > Roberto
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Internet access plans that fit your lifestyle -- join MSN.
> > http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 16:41:35 +0200
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ITU Resolution 102 -- four years later

- --=======73063D04=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-62544DD9; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 13:57 18/10/02, Stephane Bortzmeyer said:
>And will they do better than, say, the current RIRs? In what way? Will
>they "take", at least, some of the many unused IP addresses from the
>North to give them to the South?
>
>I'm not interested in which bureaucracy will manage the Internet. I'm 
>interested in the actual policy they will follow.

One of the interesting possibilities would be to distribute IPv6 blocks on 
a per country basis to respect an equal right to numbers, the ccTLDs 
becoming also national RIRs (with the possibility to subcontract to 
existing RIRs - cf. RFC 1591). What would solidify the LIC around the NIC 
and stabilize the NIC economy and legal situation giving it legal 
protection and stability.

Apart from being a tremendous action against the digital divide and for a 
democratic sustainable development (developing countries would not have to 
pay undue rights to developed countries) this would dramatically protect 
everyone against hidden exclusion while increasing security.

I explain. Today hidden filtering, wiretapping and rerouting may be made 
via the DNs, what is an hidden method. A few lines in the root file are 
enough to e-embargo Iraq. Now let assume IPs are per country blocks. Due to 
the created momentum the root system will most probably be already run by 
parallel country/regional root systems (for security partitioning). It 
would be then far more secure and cheaper to filter in/out all the Iraqi 
IPs. But it would call for a law in the filtering country. It is also a 
protection because when you filter out the block you also filter out your 
friends in that country - who may use dynamic IPs for security.

You may note that this is what is going on with telephone. European mobile 
system is a good image.
Obviously the paperwork and administration could be quite reduced. You 
usually get a phone number in seconds.

jfc

- --=======73063D04=======--

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 10:14:13 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ITU Resolution 102 -- four years later

At 11:27 AM +0200 10/18/02, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 09:59:22PM -0500,
> Andy Gardner <[email-masked]> wrote
> a message of 23 lines which said:
>
>> The one thing we DO NOT want to replace ICANN with is the ITU. God help us.
>
>I could certainly agree (replacing a US-only bureaucracy by an
>international monster which tried very hard to crush the Internet is a
>progress?) but you did not explain *why*.

I thought everyone knew already! :^)

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.tldlobby.com
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 21:27:11 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Elisabeth Porteneuve <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ITU Resolution 102 -- four years later

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> ICANN is exaggerating now, and is stretching the thing too far.
> On one hand it seems incapable to curb the monopolistic/oligopolistic 
> ambitions of some powerful actors, and on the other hand is denying 
> representativity to the less powerful, like individual users.
> On one hand it allows free hand to the major gTLD, and on the other hand it 
> is trying to impose unnecessary rules to the ccTLDs, that should be 
> answerable to their local community (and to their individual governments), 
> not to a centralized body.

Absolutely true.

It is even worst with regard to the gTLD space, which is an 
extra-judiciary one, a planetary public resource.

What is really a gTLD space ? 

There are databases of Registrants (whois), and corresponding 
domain names (zone files), which has been collected from companies, 
organizations and individuals from many countries. The access 
to those databases in bulk permits to get information of companies' 
relationships, and to deduce many things like that. 
The handling of such important databases is extremely political 
issue, and request for careful considerations: there are a lot 
of legal and business aspects, which are of interest to all governments. 

Another issue of interest is financial. There is circa 28 million 
domain names in gTLD space - what is the distribution of Registrants 
per countries? Is ICANN collecting and publishing that fundamental 
statistic data? There is an estimate that 40% of gTLD Registrants 
are outside of the USA, circa 11 million domain names. 
What is the nature of Registrants fees, which at the end of worldwide
collection process are reversed to gTLD Registries, with the cap 
of $6 per name ? That is circa $168 million per annum, and 40% of it, 
circa $67 million are collected from the non-US Registrants. 
I admit $6 is a cap, I admit there is a cost of running Registry 
- - and we know from some big ccTLD ones, run as not for profit, 
that the real cost is many many times lower. 
The question then arises: are that $67 million per annum collected 
by gTLD Registries from the non-US Registrants a tax?
I guess some users and now governments feel concerned by something 
which looks like a planetary tax.
Why ICANN maintain that enormous $6 cap fee per domain name 
in extra-judiciary international space? Why ICANN does not use
that money collected worldwide for the benefit of international 
domain name Registrants?

Best regards,
Elisabeth

- ------------------Original message-------------------------------------
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] ITU Resolution 102 -- four years later
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 11:38:47 +0000

Ross Wm. Rader wrote:

>
>Someone more versed in the matter might want to correct me, but a layperson
>could simply read the resolution thusly;
>

I'm not more versed than you, and do not want to correct you, but will 
nevertheless propose a different reading.
What the ITU is doing is simply to encourage its members to participate 
*directly* in the management of the process. This does not mean that the ITU 
wants to candidate itself to replace ICANN (although it is not impossible 
that some people in the ITU might think so).

But maybe the interesting question is, rather than arguing again over 
"bureaucracy", "government vs. private sector", and the usual amenities, 
"why is this position different from the previous position?", namely the 
encouragement to participation in the entities that manage the process.
My answer is simply that it is because ICANN has failed to address some of 
the concerns of the members of the ITU, and therefore the ITU is encouraging 
its members to take direct action to correct the problem.

Some of you might remember the comments of Wilkinson and Twomey about 
representation in ICANN, I think it was in Yokohama, but I might be wrong. 
They both stated that, should ICANN fail in providing a mechanism for 
representation of the individuals (the discussion was about AtLarge 
Directors), governments would have stepped in.
Some oldcomers might also remember that this was exactly my point in some 
discussions at the times of the IFWP, and in the creation of ICANN: let's 
try to have self-governance, but be aware that we better get it right the 
first time (and therefore be prepared to compromise for the sake of broader 
consensus rather than to push one specific solution upon other unwilling 
stakeholders), because we might not have a second chance.
Well, here we go.

But this, as I said, does not mean that the ITU will take over. It only 
means that the governments cannot accept a situation in which a supposedly 
private entity, de-facto run by one of the Governments of the world, has the 
power to rule over the Internet world-wide.
ICANN is exaggerating now, and is stretching the thing too far.
On one hand it seems incapable to curb the monopolistic/oligopolistic 
ambitions of some powerful actors, and on the other hand is denying 
representativity to the less powerful, like individual users.
On one hand it allows free hand to the major gTLD, and on the other hand it 
is trying to impose unnecessary rules to the ccTLDs, that should be 
answerable to their local community (and to their individual governments), 
not to a centralized body.

But where do we go from here?
It was Karl, if I remember correctly, who advocated that there was no need 
to have just one organization that fulfills all tasks and duties of the 
current ICANN. We could have a "functional" breakdown allocating tasks to 
different entities (existing ones, or created "ad hoc").
If this is the way to go, it might well be that one or more functions be 
delegated to the ITU. For instance, the assignment of IP addresses, that 
seems similar to the management of the frequency spectrum or the telephone 
system, and seems to be perfectly adequate for an International Treaty 
Organization. Or the management of the A-root, a typical thing that should 
be protected by international law, and not be left under the authority of 
one Government.
Of course, other tasks might be completely out of scope for the ITU, or even 
for any other similar organization, and should be left to a different body 
or mechanism.

Comments?

Best regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________
Surf the Web without missing calls! Get MSN Broadband.  
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/freeactivation.asp
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 22:59:41 +0200
From: "Jeanette Hofmann" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ITU Resolution 102 -- four years later

On 18 Oct 2002, at 11:38, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

I agree with most parts of your description. I am not convinced though it would be the
best solution if the ITU stepped in and took over the control over the root. 

What I find really unfortunate is that the idea of self governance is linked to the 
oversight of one government. What is necessary I think is some form of political 
framework that would enable a new attempt of self-governance. ICANN's failure and 
incapability of reforming itself in a legitimate way does not prove that self-governance
is impossible alltogether. ICANN's failure does prove though that both stricter and more
comprehensive forms of accountability are necessary. By comprehensive I mean more than
just one government should oversee names and numbers administration.  Ideally, this could
be achieved by a convention that restricts the role of governments to a minimum of 
sanity,
fairness and similar types of checks. Such a convention would provide the political space
for a new attempt governance model that aims to manage without direct government
intervention. Btw, "regulation of self-regulation" has become quite a popular strategy
recently. 

Jeanette

> I'm not more versed than you, and do not want to correct you, but will 
> nevertheless propose a different reading.
> What the ITU is doing is simply to encourage its members to participate 
> *directly* in the management of the process. This does not mean that the ITU 
> wants to candidate itself to replace ICANN (although it is not impossible 
> that some people in the ITU might think so).
> 
> But maybe the interesting question is, rather than arguing again over 
> "bureaucracy", "government vs. private sector", and the usual amenities, 
> "why is this position different from the previous position?", namely the 
> encouragement to participation in the entities that manage the process.
> My answer is simply that it is because ICANN has failed to address some of 
> the concerns of the members of the ITU, and therefore the ITU is encouraging 
> its members to take direct action to correct the problem.
> 
> Some of you might remember the comments of Wilkinson and Twomey about 
> representation in ICANN, I think it was in Yokohama, but I might be wrong. 
> They both stated that, should ICANN fail in providing a mechanism for 
> representation of the individuals (the discussion was about AtLarge 
> Directors), governments would have stepped in.
> Some oldcomers might also remember that this was exactly my point in some 
> discussions at the times of the IFWP, and in the creation of ICANN: let's 
> try to have self-governance, but be aware that we better get it right the 
> first time (and therefore be prepared to compromise for the sake of broader 
> consensus rather than to push one specific solution upon other unwilling 
> stakeholders), because we might not have a second chance.
> Well, here we go.
> 
> But this, as I said, does not mean that the ITU will take over. It only 
> means that the governments cannot accept a situation in which a supposedly 
> private entity, de-facto run by one of the Governments of the world, has the 
> power to rule over the Internet world-wide.
> ICANN is exaggerating now, and is stretching the thing too far.
> On one hand it seems incapable to curb the monopolistic/oligopolistic 
> ambitions of some powerful actors, and on the other hand is denying 
> representativity to the less powerful, like individual users.
> On one hand it allows free hand to the major gTLD, and on the other hand it 
> is trying to impose unnecessary rules to the ccTLDs, that should be 
> answerable to their local community (and to their individual governments), 
> not to a centralized body.
> 
> But where do we go from here?
> It was Karl, if I remember correctly, who advocated that there was no need 
> to have just one organization that fulfills all tasks and duties of the 
> current ICANN. We could have a "functional" breakdown allocating tasks to 
> different entities (existing ones, or created "ad hoc").
> If this is the way to go, it might well be that one or more functions be 
> delegated to the ITU. For instance, the assignment of IP addresses, that 
> seems similar to the management of the frequency spectrum or the telephone 
> system, and seems to be perfectly adequate for an International Treaty 
> Organization. Or the management of the A-root, a typical thing that should 
> be protected by international law, and not be left under the authority of 
> one Government.
> Of course, other tasks might be completely out of scope for the ITU, or even 
> for any other similar organization, and should be left to a different body 
> or mechanism.
> 
> Comments?
> 
> Best regards
> Roberto
> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Surf the Web without missing calls! Get MSN Broadband.  
> http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/freeactivation.asp
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1477
*************************